[PATCHES] more clusapi testing

[Jeremy Allison]

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 10:38:37AM +0200, Günther Deschner wrote:
> On 05/08/16 02:01, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 05:20:36PM +0200, Günther Deschner wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> attached some more patches for the cluster management protocol testing.
> >>
> >> Please review & push,
> > 
> > Mostly looks good - just a few immediate comments :
> > 
> > In [PATCH 04/13] s4-torture: add new tests for clusapi resourcetypes.
> > 
> > +       if (W_ERROR_EQUAL(r.out.result, WERR_MORE_DATA)) {
> > +               r.out.lpOutBuffer = talloc_zero_array(tctx, uint8_t, *r.out.lpcbRequired);
> > +               r.in.nOutBufferSize = *r.out.lpcbRequired;
> > +               torture_assert_ntstatus_ok(tctx,
> > +                       dcerpc_clusapi_ResourceTypeControl_r(b, tctx, &r),
> > +                       "ResourceTypeControl failed");
> > +       }
> > 
> > +       r.in.nOutBufferSize = 0x400;
> > +       r.out.lpOutBuffer = talloc_zero_array(tctx, uint8_t, r.in.nOutBufferSize);
> > +
> > +       torture_assert_ntstatus_ok(tctx,
> > +               dcerpc_clusapi_ResourceTypeControl_r(b, tctx, &r),
> > +               "ResourceTypeControl failed");
> > 
> > Shouldn't you be checking for NULL after the talloc's here,
> > or are you just expecting the dcerpc_clusapi_ResourceTypeControl_r()
> > calls to catch it ?
> 
> Basically yes, in torture tests it is a not so un-common practice not to
> explicitly check for the success of talloc (which I personally find
> acceptable of course only in torture tests). If you insist I can fix it
> here but then we need to have a very large followup patch for all other
> testsuites as well.

Fair enough. Can you resend the patchset for re-review, it got dropped
out of my inbox (sorry).